Slashdot Mirror


President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times: [President Obama] said he was weighing a mix of public and covert actions against the Russians in his last 34 days in office, actions that would increase "the costs for them." Mr. Obama said he was committed to sending the Kremlin a message that "we can do stuff to you," but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict... "Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will," he said...

[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."

President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."

24 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Evidence, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?

    1. Re: Evidence, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I understand correctly, this was about the DNC emails, which have the Democratic party the transparency they've been promising all this time.

    2. Re:Evidence, please. by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?

      Why are you wasting time asking silly questions!? Angry you should be, yes! Russians! Hacking!! Russians hacking! US election!! Hacking! Pay no attention to the corruption behind the curtain! Russians! Hacking! Election!

      SQUIRREL!!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Evidence, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > the electronic voting machines aren't even net-connected

      So far they have not alleged that the voting machines were hacked. But an airgap is not much of an obstacle. Do not forget how well Iran's offline centrifuges were hacked by stuxnet. Voting machines don't even have the kind of operational security procedures that Iran's classified program had. A voter could do it. Or they could attack the PCs of the people who do maintenance on the voting machines, and put a virus on the media they use to copy files to/from the voting machines.

      > merely that by releasing the DNC's emails that they hacked they swayed public opinion.

      While simultaneously withholding RNC emails. Selectively telling the truth is propaganda 101.

    4. Re:Evidence, please. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As well public opinion should have been swayed. If you don't want to piss people off about your "public policy for the masses" and "private policy for wall street and the banks", don't give speeches about how you do that sh*t. Problem solved.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Evidence, please. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      by voting for Trump.

      A large mass of people didn't just go out and vote Trump. Trump did not win this election as much as Clinton lost it. In the few states that flipped from D to R this election Republican votes remained more or less flat.

      Stein and Johnson saw massive jumps. People didn't get talked into voting for either of them because of some fake news stories, they went 3rd party after the DNC declared it didn't need or want those pesky Bernie supporters.

      Clinton lost because she was Clinton. That is no ones fault but hers and the DNCs.

    6. Re:Evidence, please. by gumbi+west · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are we talking about Trump here? He says that quite often--he says it is a negotiating technique.

    7. Re:Evidence, please. by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's a little more complicated than that, but yes, fundamentally the reason Comey and Russia's interventions were so serious was because the gap between the two candidates was in single digits. And frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the gap between any normal qualified Democratic candidate - Biden, Warren, or even Kaine running alone, against Trump would have been anything other than double digits.

      I find the blase attitude towards Russia's involvement, including the head burying in the sand thing (are Slashdotters so ignorant of history they'd really think the CIA would prop up the left wing traditionally anti-CIA party in the US?), frightening, as is the whole "Trump won so liberal tears hahahah" crap, as if this was an argument about a sports team winning over another with the possible help of a drug. Trump should terrify everyone, left or right. Russian involvement should also terrify everyone, left or right.

      But Clinton was an extraordinarily bad candidate. The election shouldn't have been this close. We'd be looking forward to President Biden and laughing at his latest gaffes if the latter had run, thinking it was odd that Trump managed to get 40% of the vote.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Re:You do it, or you talk about doing it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, you don't know that, and once again we see the Clinton Crime Family conspiracy theory put forward. Seth Rich was killed in a robbery, and it took him an hour to die. It wasn't a hit, it was just bad luck.

    I do see what fake news really is. It's every fucked up maniac's conspiracy theory somehow rendered legitimate.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. This whole story line is ridiculous by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason the emails were newsworthy at all was that the documents revealed information that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were trying to keep secret from the American voters. If the Russians were involved in the leak (and that seems like a pretty big "if" since there doesn't seem to be much evidence), they would only have been giving to the voters information that Clinton should have released on her own. In other words, these disclosures are clearly not “fake news”.

    I'll say this one more time: information that the CIA has accused Russia of sharing with the American people is “real news” about newsworthy topics, and given how pathetic the "security" was on the servers it came from, it seems unbelievable that this wouldn't have made the news sooner or later.

    Tell me again how they "hacked the election"?

    1. Re:This whole story line is ridiculous by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > They... hacked some servers and released information which influenced voters. That's it. It doesn't require anything else.

      Okay emails were leaked. Public got information that Hillary did not want the public to have.

      How is that any different than Trump having his "pussy grabbing" comments leaked? Certainly Trump thought his conversation was private. Certainly the public got information that Trump did not want the public to have. Certainly that could have influenced voters.

  4. Re: Proof by pastafazou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no proof because Russia didn't hack the elections. Julian Assange said Russia wasn't the source of the DNC and Podesta leaks, and he's got way more credibility than a partisan politician, even if that politician is the POTUS. Russian hacking = the real #fakenews

  5. Re:message from other hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not his fault, because the media is purposely confusing things. Notice how they always talk about Russia "hacking the election" even though that's not at all what happened. And then when they do talk about what Russia is actually accused of doing, they always just say "emails" to try and conflate Hillary's email server with the Wikileaks dump. It's classic disinformation and if you talk about politics with regular people, it's working: people have just kind of mentally merged Hillary's private email server with the Wikileaks email dump with Russians "hacking the vote" despite the fact that none of them are related and the third never happened.

    It's a technique that the Democrats are using to distance themselves from Hillary's historic failure as a candidate, and that the Republicans are more than happy to let them get away with because refusing to acknowledge the truth is only going to lead to a GOP supermajority in 2018 and likely a GOP-controlled Constitutional Convention within the next decade.

    But it's not surprising that people are confused about what "Russian hacking" is - the media and the lame duck administration are purposely trying to confuse people.

  6. Re:You do it, or you talk about doing it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Its funny.

    He states that its a strong possibility it was that guy who leaked it and that he was murdered. He does not state by who or why and it is a fact this occurred.

    YOU come out and say with authority (you don't have) that none of this can be true no matter what.

    And you call him an irrational nut....

  7. mr president, you're missing the point by zr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) it doesn't matter who's the hacker, if our infrastructure is vulnerable, its vulnerable to anyone. lets worry about fixing that first.

    2) fine, retaliate. why is this news? hacking happens every day. remember stuxnet? solution to hacking is better technology NOT better lawyering.

    3) nice job wagging-the-dog your way out of actually dealing with the contents of hillary emails. real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy. Putin (if it was him) did us a great service. i mean us the people, not necessarily certain people in power.

  8. Re:Why? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Convincing evidence that Russia intervened in the elections is a valid reason for the electoral college to vote the other way. No one thought of computer hacking when the electoral college was created of course but I would say it translates well. Come to think of it, the FBI director letter could in it self be considered an undue influence on the election.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  9. Re: Way to waste every modicum of self-respect Oba by pastafazou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS. Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.

  10. Re:they cant by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They won't because it's well documented that the US has interfered in elections all over the world. A quick search turns up dozens of them just since WW2.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  11. Re:You do it, or you talk about doing it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    oh fuck off. We all know what the poster was referring to, the conspiracy theory that Clinton had Rich assassinated in some sort of gangland-style take down. For fuck's sake, this is exactly what fake news is, where the diseased minds that invent these conspiracy theories suddenly become accepted as being holders of the "real story".

    There's no evidence that Rich leaked anything, and there's no evidence that the Clinton's had him killed. These are pure fabrications that have been repeated by the Sanders and Alt-right lunatics so much that they just assume the truth of this particular fantasy.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. Obama has already checked out by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He went off to vacation in Hawaii after saying that. Congress isn't even in session. So yeah, he might as well threaten them with a limp noodle.

    And even if you somehow believe all of this, the only thing they did was reveal all the corruption: the primaries were rigged, they coordinate with their super PACs, they rigged the debates and then lied about it, Hillary took down every single other Democrat that ran this year via financial means and others, Hillary got funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar (you remember what they're like from the Olympic slavery scandals, right?) and other distasteful places, they used Clinton Foundation money for Chelsea's wedding and other things I've forgotten and CNN just lies and tells us it's illegal to look.

    Even if we assume Putin himself was behind it, I'd have to thank him for exposing the corruption our press seems to be turning a blind eye to. And that's only when they weren't willingly complicit with it. No, I haven't forgotten the "WaPo party" the lawyers were complaining about, Washington Post. All those articles you write and not a damn one about your own involvement here.

  13. Ummmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this our infrastructure being vulnerable? Russia didn't hack US infrastructure, at least not that I've seen (please provide reliable sources if you know otherwise) they got in to the internal e-mails of campaigns. Also "hack" seems to be a bit of a strong word for what they did. Sounds like they got in to Podesta's e-mails by phishing his username/password. I'm not really sure what you think the federal government can do to fix/prevent that. I mean they already have information out there about "don't click on shit in e-mails" and there is training out there organizations can point people to from groups like SANS.

    That aside, even if it was a hack (as in exploiting vulnerabilities) it wasn't a federal government controlled system. So again, what is the fed supposed to do? Take over private e-mail systems? Put up a national firewall on the Internet?

  14. Re: Proof by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What? Hilary was going to take your guns if she was elected?

    How could you have any guns left after Obama took them all? Oh wait....

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  15. Re: Good luck by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you fucking retarded? Do you think if the Russians should hand over information to Wikileaks they will do it with a greeting card "From Russia with Love"? Don't you think that if they have the means to hack into highly confidential systems, they don't have groups and their ways to hide their involvement. Jesus, wake the fuck up already.

  16. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had all the nations involved in the 1991 war with Iraq helped make sure Iraq abided by their surrender agreement the 2003 war would not have happened.Instead a significant amount of those countries ran the UN Oil for Food scam and turned a blind eye every time Iraq violated the terms of their surrender. The largest coalition of nations supporting military operations was gathered for the 1991 war. It was a positive action that gave the UN a rare opportunity to show how the world could be rallied together for the common good. And then the UN reverted back to a non-entity that couldn't organize an orgy in a whore house. That sounded the death toll for the UN. It's a worthless organization that should be disbanded or at least unfunded by the US. The 2003 war occurred because Iraq violated every item of the 1991 surrender agreement. Had Japan or Germany not abided by the terms of their surrender they would have been pummeled again without question because not honoring surrender agreements will eventually lead to warring armies not offering or accepting surrender agreements which takes war to a whole new level of barbarity.

    Sadaam Hussien himself helped promote the belief that he possessed WMD because he was afraid some of the surrounding countries would take advantage of Iraq's weakened state after the first war. Had Japan or Germany not abided by the terms of their surrender they would have been pummeled again without question because not honoring surrender agreements will eventually lead to warring armies to not offer or accept surrender agreements which takes war to a whole new level of barbarity.

    The US made the mistake of planning on lengthy deployments in both Afghanistan and Iraq when they should have went in and killed those needing killing and blowing up any thing of value from the air. They made the mistake of taking prisoners from the battlefield and storing them in Cuba. There were better ways of handing enemy combatants. The Vienna conventions allowed for their battlefield executions. They engaged in war with no insignia or affiliation with a nation states military forces. The US just needs to strap some parachutes (or not) on the remaining prisoners and air drop them where they were original captured.

    Wars can be won by airpower alone. The 1991 Iraq war was won from the air and ground troops committed only after the Iraq's were stumbling around in the desert looking for someone to surrender to. Russia's recent carpet bombing of the city of Allepo is another fine example of winning a conflict by bombing everything into ruble and then bombing the ruble until it bounces. I believe everyone should support Russia in performing the same type of operations on every city in the region housing any more than 5 ISIS members. Russia is perfect for these type of action because nobody complains. If the US was to do this there would be so much complaining and hand wringing that the ones having hysterics would push to get Assad a permanent seat of the UN Security council and give ISIS next to the Palestinians in the UN General assembly.